First, at the level of theindividual,community
psychologists study the relationships between indi-
viduals and their environments. Individuals are influ-
enced by their environments (e.g., the loss of a job),
and individuals also influence their environments.
Second, the next level of analysis focuses on the
connection between individuals andmicrosystems—
environments in which the individual is directly
engaged with others, whether they are family mem-
bers, fellow students, friends, or business associates.
Organizations involve sets of larger microsystems
(e.g., schools, religious organizations). Individuals
may be involved in an organization, but their partic-
ipation is usually through a microsystem of the orga-
nization. The level of localities (typically that of
geographic localities) is comprised of multiple sets
of organizations of microsystems. For example, com-
munity coalitions exist to address problems concern-
ing drug abuse or local health care access. Finally,
macrosystemsinclude societies, cultures, and govern-
mental or economic institutions that reach beyond
the local community.
In addition to these structural features of ecol-
ogy, Kelly, Trickett, and associates (e.g., Trickett,
2009; Trickett, Kelly, & Todd, 1972) emphasize
several ecological principles that can provide a
framework for community psychology. First,
every ecosystem, whether in biology or psychol-
ogy, consists ofmultiple parts that are interdependent.
Change in one part of the system will affect other
parts of the system. For example, a change in school
leadership will affect teachers, students, parents, and
the community at large. Second, ecosystems can be
understood by examining theresourcesthat are used
and required for their well-being. Many times, it is
only when there is a stress in or problems with the
ecosystem that it becomes more apparent what the
important resources are. Thus, certain resources
may need to be created, preserved, or strengthened.
Third, individuals (and other levels of an ecosystem)
adaptto the environment by coping with restraints
or demands and using available resources. Fourth,
ecosystems aredynamic,not static. Thus, over time,
they are likely to change due to patterns of interde-
pendence, the resources that are available, and the
ensuing adaptive changes.
In summary, any individual or societal prob-
lem, because of the interdependence of different
levels of the ecosystem, can be examined at a num-
ber of levels; social environments change and are
changeable.The Concept of Community
Mental Health
The 1955 Joint Commission on Mental Health and
Illness made several basic recommendations that
set the tone for the subsequent development of
community psychology. These recommendations
were (a) more and better research into mental
health phenomena; (b) a broadened definition of
who may provide mental health services; (c) mental
health services should be made available in the
community; (d) an awareness should be fostered
that mental illness can stem from social factors
(e.g., ostracism and isolation); and (e) the federal
government should support these recommendations
financially.
In 1963, federal funds were provided to help in
the construction and staffing of comprehensive
mental health centers across the United States. To
qualify for these funds, acommunity mental health
centerhad to provide five essential services: (a) inpa-
tient care; (b) outpatient care; (c) partial hospitali-
zation (e.g., the patient works during the day
but returns to the hospital at night); (d) round-
the-clock emergency service; and (e) consultation
services to a variety of professional, educational,
and service personnel in the community. Beyond
these required services, it was hoped that the mental
health centers would also provide (a) diagnostic
services, (b) rehabilitation services, (c) research, (d)
training, and (e) evaluation. But despite Hobbs’s
(1964) description of a“third revolution”in men-
tal health, the medical model still prevailed
(perhaps because psychiatrists remained at the top
of the administrative hierarchy), and there seemed
to be a continuing neglect of minority patients,
poverty-stricken individuals, and even children.
In a highly influential paper, Smith and Hobbs
(1966) argued that community control of mental
health care and services was essential. They sawCOMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY 465